Congressional districts and true democracy
By Bruce Walker
web posted June 13, 2005
Anytime the Left becomes frantically concerned with "political
reform," be sure that this means that the Left is losing a fair fight
and wants to change the rules. Redistricting and reapportionment
are an excellent example. Despite the fact the Democrats
controlled the House of Representatives for forty-two
consecutive years, the current twelve year period of marginal
Republican control is a "crisis" because there are so many "safe"
districts. Really?
The ugly truth is that there was a period of almost complete
disenfranchisement of tens of millions of Americans since the end
of the Second World War, but that was the result of Democrat
gerrymandering of state legislative and congressional districts.
The two biggest states – California and Texas – are the states in
which the issue of how congressional districts are drawn has
become most vital. Texas, of course, had the audacity to
implement legislative rather than judicial congressional districts
after the 2002 elections and Governor Schwarzenegger is
pushing to have both state and congressional districts drawn by a
panel rather than the legislature.
Leftists love to help us forget history, so here is some important
history that anyone seriously interested in political reform needs
to have to judge where we have been and where we are going.
Consider the percentage of the popular vote that Republicans
received (of the two parties) and the percentage of congressional
seats Republicans won in those two big states in the four
redistricting decades prior to post-2000.
In 2002, Republicans' successful effort to bring democracy to
Texas, Republican congressional candidates received 55 per
cent of the statewide vote in Texas, but won only 46 per cent of
the congressional seats. In 2000, under the prior decade's
congressional districts, Republican congressional candidates
statewide won 54 per cent of the statewide vote, but won only
40 per cent of the congressional seats. In 1990, under the
previous decade's congressional districts, Republican
congressional candidates won 46 per cent of the statewide 46
per cent of the statewide vote, but won only 30 per cent of the
congressional seats. And in 1980, Republican congressional
candidates won 40 per cent of the statewide vote, but only 21
per cent of the congressional races.
In 2004, under new congressional boundaries drawn by Texas
Republicans, Republicans would have won between 18 and 19
of the contested House seats based upon the votes in contested
races, and they won 20 House seats, which is fairer than the
judicially drawn districts of two years earlier and much fairer than
any districts drawn by Democrats in the prior three redistricting
cycles. In fact, because that excludes any votes for Congressman
Ron Paul, who ran unopposed as a Republican from a populous
district, the actual number of seats Republicans should have won
and did win is very close to identical.
None of this, of course, seemed to bother much the professors
and public interest groups which are so furiously scampering
about now like Chicken Little screaming "The sky is falling!" and
these pundits have never ever mentioned that in 2004 the
correlation between the statewide total for Republican (or
Democrat) candidates for congressional much closer than in the
last four decades of congressional districts in Texas, or, put
another way, the percentage of Texans voting for Republican (or
Democrat) candidates for congress in Texas now is pretty close
to equal to the percentage of congressmen of each party actually
winning seats in Congress.
What Governor Schwarenegger is proposing in his California
legislative district plebiscite would rectify another wrong.
Consider the same four elections – 2002, 2000, 1990 and 1980
– and the percentage of votes cast for Republican congressional
candidates compared with the percentage of congressional races
won by Republicans.
In 2002, with congressional districts drawn exclusively by
Democrats, Republican candidates for congress statewide won
46 per cent of the two party vote, but elected won only 37 per
cent of the congressional races (that equals five seats in the
House of Representatives.)
In 2000, using districts drawn a decade earlier with a Republican
governor and Democrat legislature, Republican congressional
candidates received 46 per cent of the statewide popular vote
and won 44 per cent of the congressional seats. In 1990,
Republican congressional candidates won 48 per cent of the
statewide vote but won 44 per cent of the congressional races.
And in 1980, under districts drawn exclusively by Democrats,
Republican congressional candidates actually won a clear
majority of the popular vote, 53 per cent, but elected won only
46 per cent of the House of Representatives races.
There was, indeed, massive disenfranchisement of voters, but it
was Republican voters who were having their votes reduced by
20 per cent, 30 per cent, or – in the case of the Texas districts in
1980 – having their votes cut in half by flagrant Democrat
gerrymandering.
Since Republicans became the majority party, the situation has
dramatically improved, not only in specific states but nationally.
In many parliamentary democracies, voters cast ballots for party
lists, which means that the number of members in the national
legislature is about equal to the number of votes cast for the
party. How does the House of Representatives look, based
upon that standard?
In 2002, if Republicans were given the number of congressional
seats that the party won in congressional races, then it would
have exactly the 228 seats that it won – the districts perfectly
reflected the will of the American people. In 2000, it would have
219 seats instead of the 221 won, or a deviation of 1 per cent
from perfection (and, because uncontested congressional races
in Floridian races are not counted and because Republicans had
significantly more of those, Republicans likely, again, would have
had exactly the number of congressional seats as its percentage
of the national vote.) Congressional elections have come to be as
precise a measurement of partisan support as at any time in
American history.
In 1998, Republicans would have had 220 instead of the 228
won, a deviation of 1.8 per cent and in 1996, Republicans would
have had 218 instead of the 226 races won, another deviation of
1.8 per cent. The deviation would have been smaller, in both
cases, if uncontested Floridian congressional races were
counted, but in any event, in both elections Republicans would
have actually won control of the House of Representatives. In
1994, if Republican votes for congressional candidates were
translated into seats in the House of Representatives, then
Republicans would have won 233 seats instead of the 231
actually won, a deviation of less than half of one percent.
Did democracy work better before Republicans gained power?
Democracy was a joke. In 1990, if Republicans won the same
number of seats in the House of Representatives as Republican
candidates for Congress nationally, then Republicans would have
had 200 seats in the House of Representatives. How many seats
did Republicans win that election? Only 167 seats, a deviation of
almost 8 per cent.
Newsflash to so-called "pundits" and hand-wringing public
interest groups suddenly concerned about whether or not
democracy in America is working now. Yes, thanks to
Republican fairness contrasted with grotesque Democrat
gerrymandering for the prior half century, democracy in America
now works better than at any time since 1789. No thanks, we
might add, to you.
Bruce Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is
also a frequent contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common
Conservative.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com